First of all, previous pandemics like bird flu had fast infection but it was known to the experts and easier than COVID-19 to handle. But COVID was unknown and it took more time to respond properly and actually there's still more unknown things that the responses cannot be validated. It's hard to respond unknown unknowns.[1]
Second, the strategies are great on paper but when it comes to implementing them, it is all about the politics. The politics of funding the research institutes and academic institutions, the structure of the nation's health care system, economic situation and use of state budget to support people in the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, the policies to allow human movement such as lock downs and restrictions... When it comes to actions, it's just the decision of the politicians.
Third, the strategies are created with stakeholders based on previous experience. And when they exercised, they are based on either previously occurred issues or predictions of the experts/participants of the strategy. You cannot be prepared for everything so you create many different feasible scenarios and exercise them. And they are limited by the capability of the participants.
Finally, strategies are already flexible because they are not binding for the states. A government can change the strategy on the go. A government can also totally ignore the current strategy for its political agenda.
This is the crux of the current failures. Many politicians seem to be making decisions based on the consensus of the loudest in their constituencies and select experts who mirror them rather than people who have studied epidemiology.
The Great Barrington Declaration advocated more traditional responses for prioritizing the protection of those most at risk prior to the vaccines. The public discussion around this was almost entirely based on optics, and the term "herd immunity" was demonized and considered too non compassionate. It was treated like a political language exercise rather than a public safety issue. Now that term has quietly reentered discourse without much acknowledgment of what was stated by those epidemiologists because reality isn't permitting any other end state. Yet many of the original policies which the declaration advises against are still being repeated and still failing, I think in large part to save face.
Many people recognized the problems with the current policies and advocated better ones very quickly. The amount of unknowns were mostly only an issue for the first few months. Once the demographic data came in a sensible response should have been (and was to many) fairly obvious. But sensible policy acknowledges a certain unavoidable risk, and the optics of that isn't allowable in our current political climate, so we advocate delusional fantasies instead.
Those trained in fields like epidemiology and pandemic response who know what they're doing and see the failures should continue to refuse to sign their name to bad policy and publicize their issues with it. That's what the Great Barrington Declaration was and what some who have resigned from certain positions at the CDC have done.
The main justification for bad policy has been "the support of experts". Public health experts are having their field tarnished dramatically by being leaned upon in name by people that are ignoring their actual advice. They should stop allowing it. They have the most power to hold irresponsible politicians accountable, and should exercise it. The amount of good disaster management strategy that was thrown out because it had the potential to look bad and was more difficult to implement than ineffective measures (like designating certain areas safe spots for at risk people and providing spaces for them to shelter during spikes) should be more publicized.
People running these simulations are obviously focused on outcomes, that's why you run these simulations in the first place. Simulations allow you to find flaws in your preparations, but it doesn't make your preparations flawless. You try to minimize your outcome downside risk .
It is not obvious that these people who run these simulations are focused on positive outcomes on behalf of the population.
> Wide spread testing of asymptomatic people
Yes, those are very new. If the previous generations had that capacity they wouldn't think twice about doing it, but they didn't so it's new.
> lockdowns, travel restrictions, medical passports
Those are right there since ancient Rome times.
The above statement contradicts most/all studies on the subject. A few randomly selected sources:
- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/excess-weight-can-increas...
- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8073853/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33463658/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl...
Lol no, obesity is one of the biggest factors in covid mortality
You said you are in the US in another comment. I took 3 minutes to google some big US news sites. They all had multiple articles on the topic from spring 2020 until now. Your criticism is false. Some random examples:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/health/coronavirus-patien...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/04/coronavirus-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-obesity-ri...
https://www.foxnews.com/health/study-links-coronavirus-morta...
https://www.foxnews.com/health/obesity-increase-coronavirus-...
https://www.foxnews.com/health/is-americas-high-obesity-leve...
> Doctors have widely been prevented
citation needed I guess. Again, lots of stuff is being looked at (and some integrated in treatment recommendations), not just "Pfizers own new drugs".
Historically the point of vaccines have been to prevent transmission. The covid vaccine is distinct on this.
> If you can prevent that, then you can likely limit or eliminate the spread.
That doesn't make any sense. Mitigating serious illness puts no downward pressure on transmission.
And in fact, if someone's symptoms are reduced and they don't need to test because they aren't required for vaxxed, it may even encourage spread.
You are right that this could be offset because there is no isolation happening in case of an unknown infection.
For anyone who hasn’t read through John Hopkins simulated SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 it’s pretty interesting [0]. They discuss controversies concerning medical treatments, anti-vaxxers, and strategies to engage in propaganda wars on social media. Disclaimer: not wearing a tinfoil hat, no the report isn’t part of a conspiracy to railroad the population into vaccines, but it does reveal a certain ineptitude and bad faith.
[0] https://jhsphcenterforhealthsecurity.s3.amazonaws.com/spars-...
We need strategy that has the ability to be flexible. It needs to be based on outcome. These simulations incorrectly teach people that the strategy is the goal, instead of aiming towards an outcome. For example, reducing hospitalization and deaths isn't the goal with current covid policy. The goal is to vaccinate as many people as possible.